About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Metcalf 4, Us 3, Mr. Beck 2, New York 1, Boston 1, Kim 1, Rva 1, The City 1, Argon Mit 1, Mta 1, Philadelphia 1, Etc. 1, Mr. Ducibella 1, Reiskin 1, Lloyd 1, Ortiz 1, Bob 1, Lastly 1, Sandia 1, San Francisco 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    February 14, 2013
    11:00 - 11:30am PST  

11:00am
this is a depiction of the bus ramp and a series of columns and via ducts or columns and bridge decks, over which they will use and leave and on the right you see something that looks like a triangle that had to be developed in order to span the train box. that had to be subjected to modeling to see how it would respond to these various threats, including an explosive threat and in the final design phase came about as a result that have particular type of structure not being in the conceptual design.
11:01am
there are systems in the building that you may remember that i mentioned this earlier, a fire depression and the emergency lights when the power goes out and the emergency power and these systems called evacuation rescue and recovery, and their survivebility is critical if the building is in a crisis mode. what they did was go back and look at every single space that had a critical system in it, the building is long and this is one floor and all of those little colored dots represent a critical space. each one of those spaces therefore, in this final design phase was given additional
11:02am
attention, a better door, a better frame, a better wall and a better way to get in and out so it will survive. if it survives, the system that it supports will survive and that is a safer building. >> and one of those systems where there is an investment was in the fire suppression system, the building was quite large and we opted to have an additional fire pump included, the building is five stories essentially, the city water pressure is adequate to operate the water on the upper floors and it depends on a fire pump and we did not want to lose a critical pump and the sprinkler systems in the upper portion of the building and also the original design which was a concept. it was to provide additional redundancy from the pump and
11:03am
the piping perspective. part of the evacuation rescue and recovery systems are emergency power, if you don't have the emergency power and you lose the normal power things don't work. smoke purged fans don't work, stair pressure don't work and emergency lights don't work and radio communications may not work, etc.. what we did was look at the design as it matured and we found that it had three sets of switch gear for power and three sets of emergency generator and it would make sense to link them together so that if we lost one transformer or one switch gear or one engine or, generator we could cross check it. this does not exist at the conceptual design level. so as the design matured, we analyzed it and looked at it and made a determination that it would benefit from the cross connection. >> i mentioned earlier the
11:04am
value in the situational awareness. there was in the conceptual design, the notion that there would be a video surveillance system and an access control system until you have all of your rooms designed, and all of your corridors layed out and your park design with the landscaping, you physically don't know if you have every area covered with surveillance that is appropriate for coverage or whether you have all of the doors in and out of the spaces appropriately controlled. the access of the building using bio metrics, why because five years ago the card that you will use in the hotel room is insignificant for the center of the significance, it is the emerging technology and we made some improvement in the intrusion detection and does require light and so as the
11:05am
camera evolved and so did the lighting scheme with it. we are getting near the end of my list and thank you for being patient i want to do it confidently for you. >> there were many systems in a building, the tradition has been for the systems to be individual. and one of the things that the director changered with the team with was looking toward a future where the technology is designed in the building would represent state of the art when the building opened. >> and in order to accomplish that, the industry is pointed in the direction of providing hardware and software to colese these systems instead of looking at ten monitors you look at fewer and the information is collected and put through a policy engine, that is a decision-making engine that informed by people and actionable information is placed to people who under crisis may not think as clearly
11:06am
as they otherwise might. so a security, piecing system which is what we believe through current application will be the standard in the future. and the opportunities for that to happen are embedded in the design now through the enhancement of conduit and above and beyond what was conceived of in the conceptual phase. >> one of the last areas of mitigation is this chemical and biological release, design has been greatly informed over the past five years, five years ago, the information from the sources such as our national labs, sandia, argon mit, specific northwest, highly classified information, managed carefully by the federal government, not disbursed into the public domain, but because the threat for this as increased that information is now made more available and for
11:07am
2011, rva assessment took advantage of that disclosure and the design was enhanced. what did that mean? we modified the intakes and added filter to take stuff out of the air. we improved the building perimeter, we have the event to close off portions of the building if there is an event outside of it, it does not get into the building with the same level of opportunity. we protected the security operation and fire command centers with additional filtration, why? we expect the people there to manage an event. they need to stay there longer than anyone else to get everyone else out. so they need to have an additional protection to stay longer. and we had to install infrastructure and conduet and
11:08am
wire that at best this could have been a concept in 2009, but now has an opportunity five years from now could be installed with greater credibility. a few last slides. i talked a great deal with creating safe spaces. the building is not safe unless it can be safely operated when it is finished. that requires a very intelligence computer based network. which can collect information and provide actionable intelligence. and we are looking at a design in 09 that acknowledged that and we are looking at a design that is cap able of doing that and create a network in a way that is cap able of managing future technologies that required some design revision. i will finish up quickly. and there have been significant investments if these enhancements are authorized beyond the building code, and they represent significant
11:09am
liability reductions. they represent the best industry standards of practice and care. they are essential in order to obtain safety act designation and certification and will assist you in additional funding and they will optimize the response and crime prevention in the future and the direction that we were given by the executive director was to create a national model for safe, transport and it will do that as well. lastly, and i realized that this can be a difficult slide. these are cities where transit centers and other critical assets have been compromised. we have the responsibility of making sure that this does not happen in san francisco. these criteria are consistent with what is done in new york, boston, philadelphia and elsewhere. and the rva crisis will not just reduce the liability for
11:10am
the facility but create a great, safe place, bob is going to speak after me. and give you more insights into how each one of these nine categories that i have explained to you, and what the cost implications for those are. >> director metcalf. >> thank you for the presentation. chair, person, kim, i think that we need to take a moment to triage on this agenda. we are looking at a $214 million cost over run, so far on the project. we have heard an indepth part of 25 percent of this problem. i don't know if this board is going to try to go item by item to second guess or push back on this or if we are going to just accept the 56.8 rda cost ad dish or whatever the number is and say that we have to focus elsewhere. we have to we have on the
11:11am
agenda to understand the rest of the cost over runs and what we are going to do about it or whether we are doing value engineering or talking about new revenue and also have the cal tran extension and it does not seem, we have a few other things. it does not seem like we can do all of this, i would propose that we think about triaging the agenda. >> do you have a motion director metcalf? >> i am not sure what to put off or what to focus on. but i would move that we... i don't think that we can do all of this with the... i have there is a lot of indepth discussion that we need to have about this presentation and also need to do a major exploration of the downtown extension. i don't want to short change that and solve the $214 million. >> i just i have a suggestion. first of all for a clarification, it is not an over run and it is not $214, it is $164.5 million. and there is we have a
11:12am
presentation on how we are going to meet that. but, we have i know that there are some constraints of the board members and some of them have to leave by noon. and so what we could do is with the concur ans with the board secretary and council, we have item number 9 is an action item which we do need to take because that is going to the sfmta board and we need to approval first, item number ten is another action item. >> i do think that we can take the action items that i don't think that is a problem. >> we can't take those. >> they did it already. >> okay. >> i think that we should take items number nine and ten today i don't think that they will be long. but we could continue item number eight although i know how hard the staff worked to get that presentation done by today. we may not have time. >> it is an informational item. >> right. >> maybe we could continue item
11:13am
number 8 to march. >> we could do that and then, if you would like we could continue the closed session also. >> i think can we continue the closed session to march? >> yes. so director, we could continue the closed session to march but i do think that we want to finish up the presentation on the budget, it is very important. >> okay, so with apologies to planning staff i see in the audience who i know have worked really hard on talking about the downtown extension i would make a motion that we postpone that in the closed session to the next month so that we can actually give some real attention and time to the dtx issues. okay. >> so, several directors are telling me, so we do have a motion to continue item number 8, and item number... >> in the closed session item. >> number 12 to the march board. >> item 12 was an informational
11:14am
item and an update to the board and i know that we have the memo before us. >> why don't we get through as much of 7 as we can. we do have a hard stop, i believe by noon. so, if we get passed a certain point i may stop this presentation and move on to the action items, 9 and 10 so we could at least pass those out of this board. why don't we continue from item number 7 as is. so i believe that mr. beck. >> why don't we get a motion. >> do we have a motion and a second? >> a motion and a second. >> and we will take a roll call vote. >> continuing item 8 to march and closed session to march. >> with that. director lloyd? >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> reiskin >>ite. >> ortiz. >> aye. kim >> aye. >> and so we will continue the downtown rail extension and
11:15am
closed session to march and go ahead and continue back to item seven. >> thank you. >> why don't we continue, mr. beck is coming up to go over, >> thank you very much. >> i don't know if you have any questions on the rva. >> i do but i am going to wait to hear the cost. >> okay. great. >> on the rva, he described the effort that went into the rva and the attention that was paid to each one of issues. in some cases that resulted in us doing considerable additional analysis that in some cases did not result in additional costs for construction. and in other cases there were more substantial cost for construction impacts that perhaps did not prior the same level of analysis. but in the aggregate, these were all areas of focus, and attention during the rva
11:16am
process and as i mentioned earlier, aggregate, impact, or estimated impact on the construction costs budget is 64.3 as reviewed and assessed by the design team. so going into a little more detail working down the legend, which is on the right-hand side of the pie chart, and represented by the wedges within the pie chart which move in a clockwise fashion from the top. center from the 12 hour. the first issue was bus, train, and other fire event management, we did do a note
11:17am
only with the subject matter, but in conjunction with the san francisco fire department, at the end of the day, those analysis did not result in significant modifications, to the design of those systems. some minor adjustments and the next category is perimeter protection as he indicated this is providing vehicle in particular at the transit center. and there are kind of three major recommendations or recommendations within this. this estimated 9.5 million the first area of recommendation is
11:18am
moving the protective perimeter outside of the curb line to the other boundaries along the transit center as you extend the it the number of bolards increase, the vector analysis of the achievable vehicle speeds around the perimeter and that results in some bolards being recommended to be more robust and then the third area within the protective perimeter was the protection of areas that were not previously protected, in particular, the bus plaza at the ground level, the introduction, to of operatable barriers to be able to close the bus plaza to through traffic in the event that we were in a heightened
11:19am
threat scenario. so those are the three bodies of recommendations that contribute to the costs and protective perimeter. in communications, represents about 4 and a half million dollars worth of recommended changes to the communication systems. one of the major initiatives within the realm of communications is the provision of a mass notification system in kind of an all hazards address system that includes not only communications within the building, but with operators, with surrounding properties and with the public address and both visually and audibly and so forth. so the mass notification communication strategies is within that as well as the
11:20am
issues of audbility and that mr. ducibella had discussed throughout the system not only for public address, but for radio communications and so forth. >> nine and a half million dollar impact to the costs as well. these are our enhancements as i discussed earlier to the glazing system. the biggest impact here, is on the awning system around the building which had been injured to survive a seismic event, but in doing additional analysis and in fact, some actual physical blast testing, some significant recommendations as would effect the design and performance of that system, and as i will mention a little bit
11:21am
later on, based on that information in part and the budget picture as a whole we are tasking the design team with taking another look at the design of the awning system. >> structural performance, there were a few locations where there was some minor enhancement recommended. this is indicated on the start as 0 percent, there are in fact, some costs less than half a million dollars worth of costs where there is some structural enhancement to the transit center. again, an area where we conducted exhaustive additional analysis on blast performance, but one over all where the seismic performance of the transit center, the robustness of the structure because of the roof top park and the loads that it brings to the structure, we had a very robust
11:22am
structural design and only minor modifications were recommended or required. >> err pathways, roughly two million dollars worth of enhancements, recommended for the err pathways. these again are exit stairwells and the avenues for both passengers to leave the station and emergency responders to enter the station and so some minor hardening of those pathways based on a number of analysis. and pedestrian modeling that was performed. and err supporting structures, now, they are supporting systems, the err supporting systems as he described encompass a wide range of systems. so, that includes both the electrical systems in the building, fire sprinklers in
11:23am
the building, and the network system in the building, that support the communications and the video surveillance and the other systems. roughly 17 and a half million dollars worth of modifications and changes recommended there, he highlighted a few. allowing generators to back feed from one zone of a building to another. but also a number of other recommendations relating to the power systems separating the routing of primary and emergency power systems so that a physical interruption in a primary power distribution will not effect the emergency power distribution in the building so a great deal of redundantcy.
11:24am
we have a high level of reliability for those systems that support people exiting and emergency responsers entering the building. >> then, the situational awareness and intrusion detection, roughly 18 and a half million in that category. this includes as you are aware, video cameras, but also door electronic looking on doors and enhancement of electronic looks that were previously being provided. so locks and hardware and additional layering of intrusion prevention and control of the security spaces of the transit center. as well as, enhanced video
11:25am
surveillance equipment and video surveillance coverage. then, finally, the cbrn category, again he described this, this is roughly 1 and a half million dollars, a lot, primarily on power, and conduit and signaling to support monitoring and detection systems. some enhancements in ventilation control and in physical barriers to allow us to protect people within the transit center from an event outside of the transit center, and to protect the building venttation system as well. and so those are the cost category and the rough orders of magnitude associated with them. if you have any questions. >> we will speak to those categories in more detail. >> director metcalf? >> i don't first of all, very
11:26am
good presentation. second of all, i agree that we probably ought to be doing this. i would not personally think that this is the place to focus our cost-cutting efforts. however, we do need somebody to help us as a board know where we should focus if cost cutting is going to be part of this. i am curious how other boards of or other managers of major infrastructure get that second opinion on where to focus. >> i'm looking at the head of the mta to see if he has any thoughts on that question. >> dr. reiskin? >> well, what, you know, for our major projects, our funder,
11:27am
contracts with a third party entity to provide oversight over the program. and it looks at a very detailed level at the budget schedule and scope and identifies areas where they have concerns. and that it is really protecting, you know, the federal interest in the project, for the... this is talking about where we have federal funding. but they are looking at the entire project. so, that is one place, you know, peer reviews it sounds like some of this was peer reviewed is another way to do it, i think that the point is well taken that for what i see as an expenditure increase of more than $200 million, this is just a quarter of it. but when you say, maybe just this should not be the focus of cost cutting, we are not talking about cost cutting, we are talking about cost addition at this point. >> for right now as a board, i don't feel in a position to
11:28am
second guess any of these specific recommendations. >> if any of you do i would like to hear it. >> but that said, there may be other places where we have an opportunity to make some changes to the project to bring down the cost. >> so, i, if i may, i think that there is no question that we all want a safe building, safe from the various threats that face it. perhaps, seismic being the most likely threat and we want a strong resilient building and we want a he is esthetically pleasing building and operationally viable building and so i appreciate all of the background and the references to all of the previous events. s notwithstanding that, i think that the art of engineering and project management is kind of dialing those things at the
11:29am
right level. we could make this building in penetratable and we could make it invulnerable to the 11.0 earthquake and we could make it the most beautiful structure in the world with each one of those decisions there are trade offs to be made. i guess that would be helpful for me as a board member is not to try to second guess, you know the different line items that we are developed with experts. but it is generally understanding how to think about dialing the right level here, this is 64 million dollars, additional, i didn't, i had the same question as we have the building cost that is going just for this and ma